1. Cuttlefish says

    Toddlers are rarely well-regulated, even by militia standards.

    But hey, you can have my handgun when you pry it from my cold dead toddler’s hands.

  2. says

    The horror of being barely old enough to grasp the import of killing someone – the blood and pain and trauma – a kid growing up with that knowledge, killed your sister, killed your friend, killed your father – it turns my stomach.

  3. Lofty says

    And all the victims get to go straight to heaven, you betcha. All hail Saint Bubba, the patron saint of gun nuts.

  4. mythbri says


    I was going to say the same thing.

    My step-dad’s brother was killed by an accidental gunshot wound when he and my step-dad were on the way to the gun range to do some shooting. One of the pistols went off and struck my uncle in the leg, severing the femoral artery. My step-dad drove like a madman to the nearest hospital, but it was too late.

    For the next three years, until my step-dad suddenly passed away from AML, he was wracked with guilt and isolated himself from his family. He couldn’t bear to hear my uncle’s wife and children talk about him, and there were some harsh and irrational words from them as well, which made him feel worse. My step-dad never touched a gun ever again. He dropped out of his marital arts class because it was triggering terrible memories.

    Of course, when my step-dad got sick, his family trotted out religious bullshit, saying that his brother was “calling him home.” I still have an enormous amount of anger and resentment toward them for the way they behaved in the last months of my step-dad’s life.

    Being responsible for or associated with the death of a family member is not something I’d wish on my worst enemy.

  5. Blobulon says

    Well, that was awful. Between that and the piece on the Sandy Hook Mother’s Day card yesterday, I’d like to propose launching all guns into the sun.
    I need to buy more tissues.

  6. jo1storm says

    I don’t know about you but I’m sick of hearing their same shallow NRA arguments over and over again (Look at he comments at the article). Yeah, they say they are all for responsible gun ownership but don’t actually do anything about insuring it is so. If they are responsible gun owners, then they have nothing to fear. If they are not, then they should not own guns. And there should be an agency checking whether it is so, a government agency.

    Hell, even if we presume that guns are like any other controlled thing, it still makes sense. If you want to open a restaurant, it still has to obey some standards. You don’t get to say “Everything is ok, my kitchen is clean, there are no rats or cockroaches here. I’m a responsible restaurant owner.” and then not allow inspectors to see for themselves that you are. Why would guns be any different?

  7. randay says

    Talking about gun nuts, you should read most of the replies to the article. Well, for your mental health don’t. There is the usual about the 2nd Amendment. However, I disagree.

    The body of the Constitution mentions “militia” four times. Article 1 Section 8: “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    Article 2 Section 2: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States”

    So the authors’ intention of associating bearing guns with a well-regulated militia is quite clear, as is the commander, and the 2nd Amendment just continues this. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    It is not an absolute legal right for every Joe Blow to own a gun.

    To drive you need to pass 2 tests: written and driving to get a license. You need to pay to register your car every year. You need to buy insurance every year. The same rules at least should apply to owning a gun: testing, license, registration, insurance.

  8. says

    Is it odd that all of the “shooters” in this case seem to be boys? I get that the gun-nut culture is heavily male, but somewhat surprising that it extends to those so young. A somewhat scary reflection of our society…

  9. WhiteHatLurker says

    The deaths are because toddlers don’t have facebook and gmail. You see, PRISM can’t detect that they’re really evil if they’re not online. Give your kids gmail accounts the second you’ve named them. And a cell phone just after their first word.

  10. Sili says


    It is not an absolute legal right for every Joe Blow to own a gun.

    Complain all you want, but that decision is for the Supreme Court to make, and they disagree with your excellent exegetical skills.

  11. says

    I just saw a statistic somewhere that said that 84% of American gun owners are white males. Because, yannow, white men are so threatened and at risk in today’s society. *sigh*

  12. randay says

    Sili, how dare you use a word “exegetical” that for the first time in a long time I had to go to a dictionary for?;) It is disheartening for a know-it-all like me.

  13. Useless says

    Is there some reason that gun safety can’t be legislated (other than Republicans) since the Supreme Court has guaranteed our access to guns? As I have pointed out many times (e.g., it is possible to protect us from toddlers. Requiring guns to be locked up when they are not within reach of the gun owner even sounds reasonable. Locking devices (and I’m not talking about flimsy trigger blocks) cost a small fraction of the price of a gun and often less than a holster. Making the owner responsible for crimes committed with their guns for ignoring locking them down may not prevent gun tragedies, but it would at least have consequences. “Accidents” might be a kid wetting his pants — not someone being shot.

    It’s ironic that when I tried commenting on this very topic a couple months ago, my commenting privileges were temporarily blocked for an unspecified reason.

    The post cited above suggests a 3-point legislation — closing the loopholes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, requiring locking up a gun not withing reach of the owner, and requiring certification that a perspective gun buyer knows the 4 rules of gun safety outlined in the post and agrees to abide by them at all times.

    Note that all three of the suggestions are for preventing gun violence, not for limiting violence once it has already occurred. These ideas may never see the light of day, as I seem to be a poor judge of common sense.